martin F. Scheinman., Referee


(American Train Dispatchers Association PARTIES TO DISPLM: (Chicago and North Western Transportation Company

 STA=1T OF CZ,AIi4: Claim of the American Train Dispatchers Association that:

 (a) The Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (hereinafter referred to as "the Carrier") violated the currently effective Arr=sement between the partiesy Dale 1 - SCOPE, Rule 2(b) and Rule 2(f) thereof in particular, when it permitted and/or required a person not covered by the schedule Agreement to perform train di 1980.

 (b) iecause of suc'.~ violation the carrier zh:11 _c;r corm=°-::aate Claimant D. F. Gifford as senior qualified and rested train disp'_tcaer at such time, one days' pay at the pro rata rate applicable to trick train dispatchers for June 28~ 1980.

 OPINION OF BOARD: This claim arises from contradictory orders given by a
 train dispatcher and a yardmaster to Train No. 20141,
 Zxtra 6818 West at Clinton ., Iowa on June 28., 1980. At Z:35 p.m. on tat date,
 the train dispatcher ordered Extra 6'818 West not to depart the Clinton, Iowa
 yard ahead of Train No. 241, a "hotshot" westbound train due to depart Clinton
 at about the same time. However., at approximately'8:30 p.m., the yardmaster
 at Clinton ordered the Extra 6818 West to depart, ahead of Train No. 241 West.

 As a result of the yardmaster's order, the Organization filed this claim alleging that the order violated Rule 2 of the Agreement between the parties. That rule reads,, in relevant part:

        "Rule 2 (b) DEFINITION OF TRICK TRAIN DISPATCHERS' POS 'rIONS

        This class includes positions in which the duties of incumbents are to be primarily responsible for the movement of trains by train orders., or otherwise; to supervise forces employed in handling train orders; to keep necessary records incident thereto; and to perform related work.


        (f) WORK PRESERVATION

        The duties of the classes defined in sections (a,).. and (b) of this Rule 2 may not be performed by persons who are not subject to the rules of this a.~-eement.

                      Award Number 24184 Page 2

                      Docket Number IZD-24417


While the Organization acknowledges that orders within a yard fall generally kinder the direction of the yardmaster, here the yardmaster authorized th°_ Dxtra 6811, West to operate in a westwardly direction beyond the limits of the Clinton yard. 'Thus, the Organization insists that the yardmaster was clearly performing train dispatcher's work by so authorizing the Extra 6818 West.

 :urthermore, the Organization notes that the train dispatcher had specifically ordered the 2
 s-.ra 6318 West to wait the departure of the No. 241 before it left tae Clinton yard. The organization asserts that this order was transmitted to the yardmaster by a crew-member of the Extra 6818 West who, nevertheless, ordered that train to depart, in contravention of the train dispatcher's explicit instructions. Thus, in the Organization's view, the yardmaster acted outside the scope of his authority when he ordered the departure of the Extra 6818 West, contrary to the train dispatcher's orders.

 Finally, the Organization points out that Rule 2(f) is a work preservation rule. Since train dispatcher's work was improperly given to a yardmaster, the organization seeks, as a remedy, one day's pay for Claimant D. F. Gifford, the senior qualified and rested train dispatcher as of June 28, 1980.

        Carrier, on the other hand, insists that there is no violation of

the Agreement. First, it notes that ord=ers within a yard properly belong
 under the control of tae yardmaster. Here, the order to the Extra 6818 West
 was given within the Co11flnes of the Clinton yard. T·1 Carrier's view, it
 was necessary for the yardmaster to order the E. era 581.. ;dear's departure to
 avoid congestion within the yard. This is clearly a legitimate function of.
 the Tzrdm:st=_r.

 Furthermore, terrier denies that the yardmaster had knowledge of the train dispatcher's contradictory orders. Carrier notes that the train dispatcher failed to inform the yardmaster directly that he (the dispatcher) had ordered the Extra 6818 ;-lest not to depart before the hotshot No. 241. Thus, according to Carrier, the yardmaster acted reasonably, especially since any breakdown in communications was by the train dispatcher's failure to transmit his order to the yardmaster. "or these reasons, Carrier asks that the claim be denied.

 It is undisputed that the control of train movement within the yard generally belongs to the yardmaster. Outside the yard,-that control is properly the train dispatcher's.

 However, that distinction becomes blurred where an order is given within a yard which obviously directs a train's movements outside the yard. Claims based on these types of occurrences can best be decided on a case by case basis, taking into account all the facts and circumstances involved. Based u-ron the record evidence of this docket, we are convinced that the yardmsster ac-red properly and reasonably when he ordered the departure of tae -'.tra 6S=e West ahead of tae .?o. 241.
                      Award :,=be.- 24184 Page 3

                      Docket ;R=ber TD-24417


:first, the err 6313 ;lest was obviously within the yard when the order was given, thereby establishing the pr-miry ,jurisdiction of the yardmaster over its movements the yard. Clearly, it was necessary that some train or trains be moved.

 2·ioreover, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that the yardmaster was aware of the train dispatcher's contrary orders. While it is possible that the yardmaster spoke to a crest member of the Extra 6818 West concerning its movement out of the yard, the undisputed face remains that the train dispatcher did not directly comma-nicate his order to the yardmaster, despite his clear obligation to do so. Had the yardmaster given the crew a contrary order after having been informed of another order by the train dispatcher, our determination might well be different. However, absent that contrary order, the yardmaster clearly acted within the scope of his authority (i.e. - the yard) when he ordered the departure of the Extra 6818 ,lest before the hotshot No. 241. Accordingly, under the facts of this claim, the yardmaster's orde must be denied.

 FUIDINGS: The Third Division of the Adjustment Board, after giving the
 parties to this dispute due notice of hearing thereon, and upon the whole record and all the evidence, finds and holds:

 That the Carrier and the Employes involved in this dispute are respectively Carrier and Employes within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, as approved June 21, 1934;

 That this Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein; and

        That the Agreement was not violated.


                      A W A ft D


        Claim denied.


                            NATIONAL RAMBOAD ADJUS24MIT BOARD

                            By Order of Third Division


ATTEST: Acting Executive Secretary
        National Railroad Adjustment Board


By _Or_~ffl AV
        Rosemarie Brasch - A istrative Assistant


Dated at Chicago, 111inois, this 28th day of February 1983.